On what grounds do you believe that I am becoming authoritarian, because what you have said is a sweeping statement in itself?

It is hard to know how far we should go into silence, or talking about what we do not know with certainty. To some extent, speaking about some areas which are speculative can be foolish and get nowhere. But, on the other hand, what are the consequences of silence? On one hand, it could just turn all discussion to science and practical matters such as morals and politics. The danger with that would be that all of these could become inflated in focus, as if they were all that matters. Meanwhile, it is unlikely that people would stop wondering about the deeper questions. If these were not possible areas for discussion would it mean that people had to suffer these thoughts in silence, unable to voice them?

Obviously, no one has followed Wittgenstein in the literal sense, but it does give us something for personal reflection, as we speak about our views and theories. Perhaps, it means that we should sometimes be a bit more reserved in talking as if we really know. On the other hand, discussion can give rise to new ways of seeing, which goes beyond the individual minds. Also, we often feel the need to voice our ideas and would we only wish to discuss the more tangible? But, what is worth thinking about is the right to remain silent in certain areas where feel we are going to tie ourselves in knots, or be met with such opposition. Here, we may be talking about silence not due to lack of knowing but the unspeakable, which could be that which no one wishes to hear.But, perhaps that is another matter entirely.

I am not meaning to be contradictory but just struggling to make sense of the issue of change and time on a freezing cold day amidst the misery of lockdown restrictions. I don't think that there is an actual contradiction necessarily, and perhaps it is about framing our subjective realities within the larger scheme of the eternal. And, we probably have to live with the problem of determinism in philosophy because it is not easy to solve.

Yes, I think what you were talking about was more about the opposite state to suicide rather than the spiritual topic of Nirvana and I think that is worth discussing as a philosophical problem.

I believe that finding ways to cope in the face of despair is part of this. I had 2 friends committed suicide while I was at University and 1 about a year or 2 later, and this led to the becoming extremely depressed. I am someone who does believe in finding opposites to the states of feeling despairing.

I call it the process of seeking peak experiences and Abraham Maslow talks about this in his whole description of self-actualization. Colin Wilson has also explored the search for heightened states of awareness and has focused on how artists and writers have sought this. These writers are not just talking about using drugs to achieve this but accessing states of mind conducive to creativity and heightened states of self awareness. It probably is not completely separate from some of the states of awareness known to meditators.

I feel that I have known moments of heightened self awareness, often while creating art or listening to music. However, it is not always easy to tap into these states at will. I do believe that meditation is one way. But I believe this is an important area of discussion, so I hope that many people contribute to this.

Ideas are becoming less esoteric because so much information is available. I just believe that we should be a bit on the side of caution, and be honest about limits of our knowledge, so that we don't contribute to such discussion becoming hocus pocus.

Please see my post to Synthesis to see the perspective I am coming from. Also, please bear in mind that it was not me who began the thread, so it will be interesting to see what the originator of the thread thinks too. Usually, the thread originator has a major role to play in deciding what way discussion should go, so I think that I will be silent until then.

Yes, I think that it all comes down to recognising the limits of our knowledge during discussions. We are moving in an age where so much information is available to us. Personally, I read many books on a daily basis, and enjoy this, but I am aware that understanding of profound ideas needs to be supported with the experiential level. Information does not transform us into qualified teachers and I think that this is the main thing which people have to remember when we are in the exploration and discussion of ideas which are of an esoteric nature.

I think that your experience is more valuable than when people just lift passages from books and provide links because you are sharing lived knowledge. I believe that any knowledge about spiritual aspects of philosophy needs to be approached in this way in order to be meaningful.

I actually edited my reply to you because I realised that it was from a book. I knew that it was not your own writing and I really can't see the point of you just quoting a whole passage from a book. The idea of Nirvana is complex and needs to be understood in terms of the writer's perspective.

My own view is that the idea of Nirvana points to a possibility of freedom from earthly suffering, but that to understand the fuller picture we need to see it within the framework of that spiritual tradition, otherwise it cannot be appreciated in its truest sense. Spiritual knowledge is rather different from mere information gathering.

Thanks for providing a link and a long passage which I will read. But really i would have been more interesting to hear your view or understanding of the idea of nirvana.

I think that it is possible to be inside and outside of time. It is both subjective and objective. I think that this possibility arises because it is a dimensions rather than a material construct. Material reality changes, but consciousness arises within the material nature of it but is able to go into the non materialist dimensional reality, in which time can be subjective.

I am afraid that I am going back into areas related to the questions of determinism, but it may be that so much about how we see reality hinges on this

Strangely enough, I am reading the novel, by Mary Shelley, 'The Last Man,' too and I think it a very good book.

I would say that fantasising is a good way of visualising our goals. The only thing that I would say that sometimes life is not that straightforward to plan because there are hidden variables which come into play. So, we may also need fantasising to cope in the aftermath, when the planning does not give us the goals we wish for. Or, on the other hand we could wonder if our original fantasising was not done fully, or in line with our deepest more subconscious fantasies.

Okay, I see your point, but of course I might have guessed it came from Wikipedia, because that is what most people rely on as a reference.


What I would say is that Nirvana does probably mean extinguish, but I am I still think that there are various interpretations within traditions, just as there are ambiguities within the Christian tradition about life after death. Certainly, the Hindus and Buddhists I have known, who grew up in Asian countries and, viewed the matter a bit differently, but they weren't expert scholars.

Where does your definition of Nirvana come from?
Part of the problem which I see is that the idea was originally in Sanskrit writings, so getting a precise definition is difficult. In the sense, in which you are using the term it is almost identical to the Western materialist understanding of death as nothingness. Apart from knowing friends who are Hindu, I did do a module on Hinduism at University and from the lectures I attended the Hindu understanding of death was extremely different from Western non religious views of death as 'nothingness".

From my understanding of your description of Nirvana, I think you are coming from a very Westernised take on it, which is not based on the belief in Nirvana as it is within the historical context of Hinduism. I don't in any way consider myself as any expert on Hinduism but from my r discussion with some frienda from this tradition, Nirvana is not necessarily about 'enlightenment, or inner peace' but is the release from the wheel of rebirth. It is seen as the the ultimate release after many earthly incarnations, even though there is some dispute whether it is absolute, or will be followed by some future birth.

What you are describing as a state of bliss as opposed to the state of mind of a suicidal person seems more like the contrast between heaven and hell, which within Christianity can be in this life rather than just as an afterlife.

I hope that you don't think that I am being nitpicking. It is simply that I do believe that it is important to discuss ideas with some understanding of the context from which they come. Of course, no worldview exists in isolation from others, as there is convergence. In particular, I know that some Hindus believe in heaven and hell, as a state in between death in this life and future incarnations. But, of course, there are many different forms of traditions within Hinduism and later Eastern traditions, but I just believe that your presentation of the idea of Nirvana is based on the misinterpreted idea of the concept which developed within psychedelic writings, and the name of the group Nirvana (there was also a 60s band called Nirvana as well as that of Kurt Cobain).

Edit: I will say that the the Hindu perspective which I was thinking of when writing my response to you was Theravada tradition from which Buddhism emerged, so it is possible that you are drawing upon a tradition which I am not acquainted with, so if you are I apologise. However, I do think that it would be be more useful if you were able to contextualize your understanding of Nirvana.

I am inclined to think that the information we find on computers is sometimes lacking something. However, I am not sure that everyone else would agree. I suppose that people might say that the what we get from books is just the same. I would say that the point where it becomes knowledge is about our relationship with it. Obviously, if people don't read their books fully it is static and not a lived reality too. I am inclined to think that the information on some sites, especially Wikipedia, can just be pulled out and used to back up an argument.

I would say that the main difference between information and knowledge is about the living experience it has for us. When I have spent time and energy searching for a book in a library or shop and spent time engaging with it, and reflecting on it, from my point of view that is when it becomes knowledge. It would be possible to interact with information on a computer in this way but I am not sure that people always do. I would say that it is possible for some of the ideas exchanged on this site to become knowledge, because we have much more of an interactive relationship, involving discussion with others. Certainly, when I am engaging with others on topics here it seems to me that I come away with more of an internalised sense of understanding than if I was just browsing the internet.

Extra: I am adding something to this after feeling angry in the middle of the night by yet another reply to something I wrote which simply challenged what I wrote by referring me to Wikipedia. I am so fed up with the way people on this forum use it as if the ultimate word. I almost feel tempted to write a thread question asking if people think philosophy discussions are redundant because Wikipedia has all the answers, but I think that I would be seen as the enemy. But I do believe this sums up how information is being manufactured in preference for knowledge.

The one concern which I have is about how computer technology is used, for good or bad. Obviously, it brings positives, mainly so much knowledge at the touch of the keyboard.

My own personal worry is that many aspects of social life will never reopen again. I got this worry after I spoke with someone in a public service and she hinted at the word 'if' the service is open in the future. So, I am worried that services such as libraries, community education centres may be closed down through the backdoor after the pandemic is over. I see many jobs advertised as being remote working. Of course, that is for now, but the pandemic may go on for years because we don't really know how effective the vaccine will be, so there is a danger that the need to socially distance in most situations will be enforced for an indefinite future.

I know that some people say if the future is one of remote working that it will be good for the environment. But most of the people saying this are based in a family unit and with comfortable homes. How is this going to be for people living alone in bedsits?

We have already seen prior to the pandemic that people are shopping more and more online. This is going to have escalated and is becoming the new norm. It cuts out the whole level of human interaction. The worst possibility would be if the need for others gets pathologised. We are not at that stage, but it would be the worst scenario for any emerging totalitarian society.I do fear that the way in which individuals' uniqueness is being undermined is a first move towards that chilly prospect. Of course, I hope that I am wrong in making the connections and that people wake up to the need for the value of individual and social connectedness as an inherent human values.

I think I am editing my life all the time. I am busy looking for data and the experimenter seems to be AWOL. Sometimes, it feels like life is all snakes and ladders, mazes and knots.

I would say that the main reason why I would say that the reason I see the whole question of how one should live as being related to the biggest questions is because it all seems to come down to what really matters. However, I will contradict myself in so far as to say, that I do believe that treating others fairly and well seems to be independent of the deeper questions. In particular, I would say that this stands independently of questions such as whether or not God exists or whether there is life after death.

So, I am probably asserting a basic humanist approach to moral values, which is a provisional philosophy while we are able to be more reserved in forming clearer ideas. But, I do believe that framing within systems is important. I am a pluralist and do believe that some questions are extremely difficult to find absolute answers for.

Some people find more meaningful in dreams than others. I have very vivid dreams and I am interested in lucid dreaming, although I probably don't follow the interest through fully because I am pursuing a number of interests in reading, and even the idea of self hypnosis. Sometimes, it just seems that there are not enough hours for all the inner work, and the whole quest for knowledge.

I think that there are many reasons to be sceptical of the psychoanalytic writers. Both Freud and Jung have many shortcomings, but I would say that my own past experiences is one in which Jung was almost my mentor. I discovered him while I was still at school and he gave me a whole structure of thinking and deconstructing over a period of time when I really needed it.

I have read some writing by William James, mainly 'The Varieties of Religious Experience,' and I did find it impressive. I am not sure that thinking about life in mythological ways solves all the questions. It is can have value but it does not answer all the big philosophy problems. It is just like one brick in a larger brick wall. Philosophy sometimes seems like building a wall, and sometimes all the bricks tumble down, and it is about starting over again and again.

However, one division which I see is the whole area of philosophy is between the philosophy required for living a meaningful life and the philosophy for answering the ultimate questions about reality. I am not sure that they can be divided clearly. However, one could say that the best way would be to answer the metaphysical and epistemological questions first, as a foundation for living. The problem is that this endeavor could go on and on, and on. In the meantime, we still have to live on the basis of rocky foundations. I am not saying that we should give up finding answers, but even if we think we have found them, they are not ones others will agree with necessarily, so it still seems like the most we can come up with a view that is like a personal mythological system.

I do think that meaning is something we find for ourselves. It all seems like being in a labyrinth at times. I have felt as if I am in a dream on many occasions, especially waking up to a shutdown world during the last year.

You ask if dreams have purpose and I think they do. I would say that they are a way of unlocking the more hidden aspects of ourselves. I know that many just regard them almost like the recycle bin of our waking consciousness. But I side more with the psychoanalyst perspective here because I have found that the more attention I pay to dreams the more potential they have for understanding the self.

I once kept a dream journal for six months and I found that by recording them I could find themes which emerged and seemed to develop. The only reason I did not keep up the daily journal was because it was hard work having to write down the dreams before I forgot them.

I think that Freud's perspective on dreams was limited, because he placed too much emphasis on sexuality. Of course, it is important but it is not the only aspect of life which is important. I prefer the whole way in which Jung saw dreams as conveying mythic truth. It is worth understanding the symbolic dimensions, but that is not just in the way that some dream interpretations books offer generalised statements. Symbols have different values and meanings for each person.

Getting back to your idea that life has no meaning, perhaps it is worth you consider the way in which our lives can be considered as mythological quests. Also, I think that it is worth paying attention to dreams. Perhaps that dream journaling is something we could all be doing in the void of lockdown restrictions, as a means of increasing self knowledge and creativity.

Yes, concentration is a good thing, especially for driving or riding a bike. I don't drive and have never tried to learn, partly because I don't think my eyesight is perfect enough and because I am a daydreamer. I haven't ever had a bicycle because my dad was going to buy me one for my seventh birthday and my mum asked me if I would prefer a record player, so I became a child DJ instead of a cyclist, and I have never got round to having a bicycle. But I don't know how people manage it on busy roads.

But being in the a positive frame of mind affects everything. I don't believe in false positivity, but if I find that I am going into a negative spiral, I try to work with it rather than let it go too far. In usual circumstances, if I am getting negative at home I go out to a cafe or somewhere. It usually helps but sometimes feeling negative is not that easy to solve. Probably one of the reasons I have so many CDs is that I have gone out buying them as an antidote for feeling miserable and I think it often works for me. Of course, meeting others is helpful but I need to be in the right frame of mind for that. The worse thing was being in the right frame of mind at work, where concentration was needed, but the only solution I have found for this is coffee.

It is brave of you to ride a bike after your accident. After some accident it is easy to become avoidant of similar situations. I even thought on Friday that I would not go to the river in Wandsworth again but that is not the real issue. It is more about being careful when crossing roads. This was told to me endlessly as a child and perhaps with all the rules and regulations about preventing Covid_19, it is easy to become careless in other basic ways.

But the whole question of maintaining the right state of consciousness: mood and concentration, does seem central to all else in life.

I can't think why you would want a 'heterogeneous solution'. It sounds like a rather nasty affliction. Personally, I am a bit suspicious of any attempt at a meta meta theory, as it seems to be a way of trying to put everything into neat little boxes. Probably some people seek to do it, but it seems to me like an attempt to try to force the sea into an enclosed space. Life is too wild to be contained within fences. I would say it is braver to live with the pluralistic search for truth.

I think that the whole way in which we process our experience enables us to create pathways in our thinking and enable us to move away from being passive victims. I do believe that state of mind does affect what experience we have on a subconscious level. I had got into a negative state of mind prior to my experience of getting knocked down by the bicycle. Strangely, I had been in a most atrocious mood on the day when I got knocked down by a car. I did see both experiences more as a wake up call, and last night and today I was trying to focus in a more positive way and I think this did work as by this afternoon I was feeling far more upbeat.

I do try to incorporate various techniques to help cope with experience, including mindfulness and some meditation. I also believe that cognitive behavioral therapy techniques are helpful. I did undertake some personal psychotherapy as part of art therapy training but I found that it made me more depressed. Some people seem to find psychotherapy extremely helpful and I guess that a certain amount can release unexpressed emotions. However, it is focusing on the past mainly, whereas cognitive behavioral therapy is concerned with the past. It is probably about getting the right balance and people vary in their needs.

Of course, you are right to say that performing tasks does help too. I think that writing and engaging on this forum is a good practice for expression, critical thinking and for raising self esteem, rather than thinking alone.

I think that you are new to the forum, so I hope that you find some interesting discussions. I am in favour of awareness of the moment and I am interested in the whole process of transformation.

I have read a fair amount in the area of transpersonal psychology. So, my whole understanding of experience is about wishing to pursue higher states of consciousness, although that doesn't mean that we can necessarily sidestep some of the hardest learning experiences.

I was crossing the road when I got knocked over in the High Street when I got knocked over by a bike. It was probably because I had a mask on, as I had just come out of the supermarket, and this was obscuring my vision and the bike was going really fastly. At least, the man on the bike did get off the bike and asked me if I was okay. A few years ago I got knocked to the ground by a car and hurt my leg and the car didn't even stop and the driver must have seen that he had knocked me down.

But, I will have to be careful that it isn't a bus next time. I was shaken up though yesterday and earlier I had gone for a walk by the river and wandering along without being able to go inside any buildings had made me feel like some kind of vagrant. So, it was really in this frame of mind that I wrote this thread. It was my little drama and it does seem that life is full of so many dramas for reflection.

I do think that what we experienced in life affects the whole way we think and form our ideas. Perhaps, the people who have the most difficult time in life are the ones who become the most philosophical. I am not sure that all the individuals who gravitate towards philosophy are always doing so because they have been having a hard time. However, I do think that suffering is a reason why many people do begin asking questions.

I definitely have found that I probably would not have taken the interest in philosophy if I had not struggled so much as a teenager. I think my whole religious background that got me reading and thinking about philosophy in the first place. But I do read philosophy when I am happy too because it has become such a central interest. But I do think that the whole experience of suffering can be a starting point for deep thinking and that many people don't begin to think deeply because they don't feel the need.

When I did my degree independent thought was considered as the mark of excellence. However, in courses I have done more recently independent thinking is not about independence at all, but just backing up arguments with published opinion. I had a tutor told me, 'You might as well suggest that people fold up pieces of paper all day, unless you back it up with empirical evidence to show that what you are saying works.'

I think this probably goes back to the whole idea of post truth, which I mentioned in the discussion on relativism. Even though I have found some of the postmodern authors, such as Lacan and Baudrillard useful for helping me think through ideas, I believe that postmodernism has contributed to the erosion of individual expression and the importance of uniqueness.

I think that some people are better at trying to be robots than others. At work, I can remember how so many people just used to be able to be so alike. The more people expect me to act like a mould the more chaotic I become.

Perhaps it comes down to how we are treated as children. I don't think that I was forced to conform that much. Even at school, I was considered as 'arty' and left to my own devices a lot. My close friends are mainly arts orientated and seem to have difficulty conforming and being robotic.

So, I am really in favour of the right to be a creative bohemian outsider. It will be interesting to see what other people on the site think of your thread and whether they struggle if they are not given enough scope to be unique.

Extra: I just looked under discussion and saw all your previous one. I smiled at the one about toilet paper, and I think my mum hoards toilet rolls.

I think that it is a good topic because we need to be treated as unique individuals. I would say that there is an increasing tendency to treat and expect everyone to be the same and we are not. I know that I cannot function or perform if I am expected to behave in that way. I remember once being in a job where I was told that I needed to do exactly all the tasks which the person before me had done.It was as if I was meant to be a duplicate of the other person, as if nobody would notice that he had left and I had taken over. I did not stay in that job because I didn't feel valued as a unique person, and felt I was meant to behave almost like a robot.

I think that the whole idea of nature and nurture is a topic which can be explored by sociology but It is not simple when we try to look at individuals, but of course we can ask them. We can think about our own socialisation. I certainly hated gender stereotypes.

I remember giving a birthday card to a girl at her party and getting told off because her mother said it was a boys' one. I just said I chose it because I thought it was the best picture. I am surprised why so many girls are going for pink these days.

In these days of identity confusion and dysphoria, we could ask has the idea of androgyny been thrown aside into the scrapheap?

I would say that it is not possible to determine whether someone's behaviour is derived from norms or not, but the best we can hope for is to give every person the best opportunities and free choice.

I think that I dislike sexism in some of its most stupid forms or what appear as stupid to me. In particular, I dislike the whole way in which shops divide books and birthday cards into those for men and women. When I go to buy birthday cards I just want to find a nice one, whoever it is for, and find the categorisation as ridiculous, especially when the ones for women seem to come in pink.

I am very bi and do go to gay pubs but can't say that I find them particularly friendly. I used to prefer them to straight pubs but now I think that some of them are a lot more cliched. But I have heard that a lot of Soho may never reopen and I think that will be a great shame. I don't know how Brighton will be affected, but a few of my friends have moved there because they feel that it is the most tolerant and open minded community in many ways.

As I just said to Bitter Crank, I certainly don't believe that we are in an actual experiment. I am really speaking of how we can experiment to give life meaning. So, I am editing my title to prevent my question being misinterpreted. I don't believe if in some kind of grand design, so I am more into consideration of how we experiment to create our own reality, or even our own personal little utopia, rather than looking for some ultimate transcendent reality.

But I do see it as being many different experiments rather than just one. I think the reason why I even wrote the thread is because I feel that lockdown restrictions have turned my life upside down and so many other people's lives. It feels like the world we knew and the lives we have made have collapsed, so I was just thinking about how it is all like an experimental drama.

I feel a bit like Bart Simpson. As I know that you like music, one band which I would recommend is The Dream Syndicate. They have made quite a few good albums but the one which I have been enjoying recently is, 'How did I find myself here?' Perhaps it would have been a better thread question than the one I asked.

I certainly wasn't implying that our lives are an experiment from any divine higher power. I had quite a bad yesterday and even got knocked down by a bicycle on the road. Fortunately, apart from a few aches and pains, I am fine but was feeling a bit shaken up and miserable.

I think me asking that specific question about can life be viewed as an experiment was probably a reaction to being on my phone and there just seem to be so many people creating threads about God and religion. Even people who are opposed to the ones who are creating the religious ones are busy creating debates about theology. It sometimes feels like it is the centre of the whole agenda of philosophy.

I am not a nihilist but don't feel that we are part of some kind of grand design. It just feels like we have to find meanings and not give up. I had also been reading the thread on reasons for living and that seems to be about finding solid, logical reasons for carrying on life. I believe that there aren't any clear answers to that thread question but at the same time, I do believe, personally, that life is worth living and that we need to make the best of it. So, I am really saying that we can create our destiny through our own experimentation.

I know that some people have criticised Carl Jung for a possible bias in favour of Germans rather than Jews at the time of Nazi Germany. In particular, he treated some Nazi's as patients and did a speak not speak out about what was happening at a critical time in history. Some people have dismissed Jung's ideas on this basis but I think that his whole idea of the shadow is a useful idea for thinking about collective evil, including prejudice.

The whole way in which we take on board ideas is questionable too in some ways. For example, on one course I did a tutor said that the external examiners questioned the tutors on why all our essays seemed to adopt feminist ideas. It was queried whether we were being indoctrinated. I believe that we were adopting feminist ideas because we were all critical of sexism.

There are also disagreements within sections of communities. One particular one is how some radical lesbians have been fairly hostile to transgender people. When I was at college I knew a woman who had been identifying as a lesbian. Really, she considered herself as bisexual and she told me how when she had an affair with a man, she felt her lesbian flatmates were more hostile to her than any heterosexual people had been to her about her lesbian relationships.

So, there are many possible issues and debates , and they are all relevant when thinking about the whole nature of prejudice.

(I am giving short answers as perhaps that is what you are seeking.)

I. Ultimate reality is beyond matter. It could be seen as a force and has been called God by some but this description is problematic in some ways because, sometimes, people project human qualities on it.

2. It is hard to know for certain if there are absolute truths beyond the relative ones.

3. Morality has a certain amount of relativity but some acts, such as murder and rape are harder to describe in that way.

4. We are here as a result of evolution. We are here to live as well as we can, for our benefit and that of others. We are here to create pathways for future generations and lifeforms.

I would say that the whole spectrum of gender identities is complex indeed for some people. It is a topic beyond the scope of a gender rates poll and I was just clearing up any confusion about the word 'other' on forms, because I know this category has been introduced on some forms in the last few years.

I would be prepared to give you some kind of answer but you have asked 3 of the biggest philosophy questions ever, and some others. I don't know if you were asked to devise questions. If you were, I think you could perhaps narrow it down a little, or else a full answer might almost involve writing a book, at least.